The Jedi administrative board shall have no fewer than 3 members?
On average, everyone agrees with nonconsensus between 768 voters.
Please read the comments from other voters below, then scroll down make your decision. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
The Jedi administrative board shall have no fewer than 3 members
Reasons To Disagree
I DISAGREE ON GROUNDS THAT A SOLUTION IS ABSENT IN THIS AS WELL. THIS IS AN IDEAL. HOW WOULD YOU PURPOSE THAT TO HAPPEN?
18 July 2008
well.....thats alot of power for three people...like Abraham licoln once said, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." not saying im distrusting of the administration its just better to be safe then sorry.
24 July 2008
as already stated
4 August 2008
should have more people to give more options
13 August 2008
If there is one unusual being of prowess and mental power, why not let that one lead us all.
15 August 2008
Always 12.Never less or more.
8 September 2008
how the Jedi council of old The Council was made up of five lifetime members, four long-term members, and three limited-term members
10 September 2008
the council should remain 12
14 September 2008
This number is far too small when deciding matters for thousands. 12 members are sufficient, as the Ascended Master Jedi Jesus had 12. This was viewd as enough to change the history of this world via the teachings of the Christ.
6 October 2008
location and and number represented for the issue should matter, but otherwise a minimum of 6 for any small issue or 12 for a larger issue
17 December 2008
If we were able to establish one true leader, they could become both a figure head, and a master to all those unfamiliar with the ways of the force. And it is impossible to disguise impurity in the eyes of so many. If the leader is too weak, he/she shall be replaced with a purer candidate.
3 January 2009
7 March 2009
It should be on an rotational way from the member council.
18 April 2009
Eleven is a good workable group size. The only valid reason for allowing the council to be less would be if there are fewer than 11 Jedi remaining in existence.
18 April 2009
Ciuncil should have a set number.
19 April 2009
the number should be based on numbers in the church and in regions
29 April 2009
A Quorum hould be at least 7 for any major decisions. Urgent or on the spot decisions for local reasons may be fewer but a minimum of three. Learn to trust the wisdom within.
2 May 2009
12 is much better. It allows more minds to be involved and gives time to allow a matter to be dicussed and better resolved.
16 May 2009
This would not voice enough opinions.
20 May 2009
12 is greater then 3, you get more views with 12 members.
25 May 2009
Scrap the board decisions should be made like this
11 June 2009
Well....No. It should have about 10.
20 August 2009
there should be no adminastrative board no1 has the right to be above any1
13 September 2009
3 is too small, the smallest number in the power group should be 9 or 11.
29 September 2009
i think more than 3
1 October 2009
7 October 2009
You need more than three to get anything done. Five should be a minimum, seven is better, anything more than 11 becomes more challenging.
13 November 2009
Perhaps 12 we should have, if there are never less nor more than 2 Sith agents, a Sith Lord and Sith Padawan then perhaps we should seek more Jedi Masters. kiz
5 March 2010
there should only be one. Gary 'The God King' McF
11 March 2010
i say at least 6 for there are to many members and force use for 3 ppl to handle
17 March 2010
As with to many members to few will also cause trouble in the long run of things
10 April 2010
5? is better
22 April 2010
more the merryer
20 July 2010
There should be 13 at all times. 13 is an odd number, therefore there can be no ties, and it is neither too high or too low, so there is enough room for various opinions.
25 July 2010
Should not have less than 5.
17 September 2010
Three is too low of a number. No less than 11.
13 October 2010
12 in a Supreme Council, additionally with 1 for every __ members.
26 November 2010
Three cannot decide the fate of an entire religion.
21 February 2011
3 is too little, i would very much like to discuss this in detail if someone would like to contact me. May The Force Be With You, Obi Sims.
16 June 2011
Again, there should always be 12
24 February 2012
Shall have no fewer than 7 members. 3 isn't enough amd puts too much power into 3 jedi's hands
9 April 2012
Needs more members to prevent corruption
17 April 2012
The minimum number should be 5. With three the power is in too few hands and one member could easily be lead by the others.
5 November 2012
No, that is definitely too small for an appropriate agreement.
16 October 2013
more than 3!
23 April 2014
No definition of this board is given. Is this the Jedi Counsel or is this purely an administrative function? If this board is for purely administrative action separate from the Jedi Counsel of 12, then 3 is a good number to take care of administrative duties like maintaining this website, etc.
21 September 2014
If there are 3 members there are not enough supporting ideas floating around the administrasive to think about and think through. At minimum there should be 13.
3 February 2016
there would be to many ties
24 April 2016
There should be one member of the Jedi Council and that should be me. ========D
25 August 2017
Wtf more. I'm here to remake hermetics aka this. There should be a vote for master/ administrator which picks leader so 50% for them 50% for every one else. I'm Mickeal
10 September 2019
Reasons To Agree
I agree, if less then 3 members are in power, who will keep those 3 people in line?
19 July 2008
3 is a good number. one to agree, one to disagree and one to confuse both sides
5 August 2008
i think 3 because "3 is a good number. one to agree, one to disagree and one to confuse both sides" - not my words. is a very good statement!
31 August 2008
it needs more but never less than three
10 September 2008
Such power can become a burden to one single jedi, or even two. this is a path that would certainly lead to the dark side of the force.
18 September 2008
If you had fewer than it could get nasty.
29 September 2008
Too much power in the hands of too few would be disastrous. To be fair, I think that a representative system should be worked out in order to decide what is best for all Jedi.
6 October 2008
A local chapter should have no less than 3. The grand council should have 13.
15 October 2008
anything under 3 is not good for decision making - yet 3 is also way too small - if 3 is reached - everything should be done to bring it back up to 12.
25 October 2008
We need more than three people one or two is not democrocy now is it
8 November 2008
IF LESS THAN 12 THEN NO VOTE CAN TAKE PLACE.
21 November 2008
no ties and the agreement of at least two masters
1 December 2008
agree there needs to be far more, Or the individual Ministries will not be very well represented
8 December 2008
There should be 12 but The Jedi Administrative board can function temporarily with only 3 members guided by the Force.
9 December 2008
If you are getting les then 3 you are starting to look at the posibility of absolute power which leads to the dark side
9 January 2009
Those that have power will be unwilling to let go of that power and lead them to the dark side. More is better
10 January 2009
While I was neutral on the subject of having no more than 12 members, having any less than 3 will only put the Jedi at risk, as it would be harder to stop any forms of corruption into the sith.
13 January 2009
No less then 3, better 5.
20 March 2009
Yes by having three it allows them to keep each other in line- one would result in him/her being consumed by self importance and eventually power,and if by havin two the more in charge would be able to persuade the second more easily than if there were three. Therefore 3 is a good number as they can support the other members of the administrative board so that no bad decisions are made or anyone is consumed by power etc.
21 March 2009
If there were 2 you open yourself to a splitting of opinion that could result in a splitting of the Order. If there was one, you would be inviting a dictatorship.
20 April 2009
Um three is once again i stated is fine um u don't need a ton of members to answer one issue it only takes a few always than that we wouldn't get any where now would we? So i prefer a mid range such as 5 or 7 but three is fine
30 May 2009
There should be 12
27 June 2009
This idea can stop dictatorship within the ministeries of the Jedi church.
31 July 2009
A representative system should be in place to ensure that there is not too much power in the hands of too few.
21 September 2009
12 is a good number. i also believe that for every decision two people should be appointed, one for each side before the counsel is made aware of the question. that way all members should have an unbiased view of all sides, or at least strive for one.
28 September 2009
Administrative responsibilities can be a heavy burden on 1 or 2 people.
16 October 2009
VERY minimum. Personally I believe no less and no more than 12 at any one time.
25 October 2009
11 or 13, multi-national. Increases chance of differing views, but makes ties impossible.
28 October 2009
Some consider Paul to be the thirtheen Apostle and Jesus gave him and Peter a vision of this addition and what about Jesus himself wouldn't that make 14. I beleive a number of members should evolve with the growing numbers of the Order. A council member for so many members in the Order. But definitely never less than 7 that is an uneven number to help keep balance a center piece of heavy decision making when the Order is low in Numbers.
21 November 2009
Only in an emergency should the council ever get down to three members and should never go below that. Remember that the Sith were a rule of 2, a master and aprentice and the size was to hide their actions....we have nothing to hide and should act and be a size accourding.
24 November 2009
8 December 2009
The mass is easily swayed by popular opinion, and non Jedi ethics, however no individual Jedi should be place in a such a position of potential corruption.
2 January 2010
3 members for over like 20000 people! i think we need more
21 January 2010
There must be proper representation of all members regardless. Three seems too small a number in the best of times
28 January 2010
Always necessary for a quorum.
26 February 2010
The BALANCE is well
28 February 2010
13 is the Numeber
20 March 2010
We need atleast three to have a group disscussion in the board protecting public intrest. There are now three main views to be seen, dissagree, agree, and neutrality. The inclusion of 3+ members without the chatter of more than 12 allows the important matters to be disscused thoroughly, voted apon, and completed in a subjective manner. One person is more likely to serve himself, two are unlikely to complete a task with similar risks.
22 March 2010
One of sword, one of might, one of sight and one of knowledge. Compassion, love, wisdom, enlightenment.
5 April 2010
It's an absurd concept to even think of it as a "board" if there are less than 3 members on it. How is this even a question?
8 April 2010
we must not allow this order to become a dictatorship
14 April 2010
Important decisions should not fall upon so few.
16 April 2010
1 May 2010
The rule of 2... We could become sith!
2 May 2010
actually it should be no fewer than 10 but never a number that can divide equally without 1 extra (example 9 can be split equally 3 times were as 13 cannot.)
19 May 2010
13 The Council of Twelve Grand Master. Simple as.
28 May 2010
31 is the way for The Jedi Administrative to be.
25 July 2010
Should something happen to the majority of the board, 3 people can lead reasonably. It is doubtful 10 or more of the board will be gone at all times.
7 September 2010
we should have a board with a member from every country
22 September 2010
Well certainly there should be more than three. There should be way more than three. There should be at least twelve.
4 November 2010
A prime number will do. 13 is good.
1 December 2010
Three is the lowest it should ever go, and only short term aswell.
8 December 2010
we need to be world wide present, so 1 ambassador per continent is a must
3 January 2011
If two disagree there can be no resolve, if there was only one it may not be in the best interests of the jedi order so three is the least number needed but the more the merrier and the minimum should be 13
18 February 2011
Agree.They could turn to the darkside and lead a dictatorship if it was only one or two.
28 February 2011
This is important so as there is not a dictatorship type situation
22 March 2011
We want the administrative authority to be a democracy not a dictatorship, we want the council to decide what is right for the church and not what is right for them
23 April 2011
I agree. That is too few to have control of the Jedi.
26 April 2011
I completly agree. There needs to be more than 3 people, but it must be kept an odd number to reach an answer at the end of a vote. If there are 2 people, then there may always be a tie depending on their beliefs. If there is only one, then that one person may take control of the power he/she has, using it for corruption and darkness. As well as this, other people ideas and beliefs may not be taken into account.
21 June 2011
no fewer yes but that does seem low
28 December 2011
... but we should add "three experienced and prudent members"
1 February 2012
Three is a bit low for the minimum, but it's better than 2!
8 February 2012
If there are too few Jedi on the board, they will not have enough influence from fellow Jedi to remain uncorrupted by power.
21 February 2012
4 or 6 3 is to much power for 3 people to handle alone
2 April 2012
No fewer than three for sure but I believe more members are needed.
8 November 2012
Many jurisdictions require 3 directors as the minimum. It is an unwritten industry standard for legitimacy. Also, it is best when forming a small board to preclude executive officers as voting members. Are the board officers insured?
23 April 2013
I think more should be given for the board perhaps 6 a more even admin board.
3 July 2013
26 November 2013
As we have seen with many governments and other orders, there are always traitors within. if we allow more members within the board we would be allowing allegiances to form but to few and it would be one Jedi against another. stay as we always have but keep greater communication within the board.
3 January 2014
and i quote: "one to agree, one to disagree and one to confuse both sides". This question needs followup though, more discussion on the merits of different minima.
10 March 2014
maybe no fewer than five
21 November 2014
In any organisation with several members, leadership should be sizable.
6 December 2014
Less than 5 is a bad idea because it would soon become a split monarchy.
13 February 2015
This sounds ok to me
24 February 2015
The more the better unless it is to many
27 June 2015
I agree to no LESS than three. However, i think once a number is agreed upon we should maintain a filled seat council through emergency election if necessary.
1 January 2016
Anything less will become a dictatorship
25 January 2016
i believe at all times there will be 12 no more or less every so often we vote and change the council or have the checks and balances
14 February 2016
We should have more people always leading us.
29 March 2016
Balance must be kept
18 April 2016
There should be 12 and this vote seems over redundant. Sir Liam
31 August 2016
8 October 2016
The Jedi Council Needs a diverse spread of power to avoid being corrupted
27 October 2016
Ideas must be shared equally with all.
3 January 2018
Should be more but never less
27 February 2018
Yea, at least, to avoid dictators and monarchy
11 June 2018
Reasons for Remain Neutral
We need no more nor less than the Body of the Jedi, that is, all its beings, believe to be the correct number to accomplish our mission.
You need no more or less than the number of people to accomplish the mission and once again it falls down in amongst the chosen 12.
i remain neutral
jedi but humanand all human can be abused or blind seven member no more no fewer
It deppends the location
I still don't care about administrative topics
Aye, it should have no fewer than three sit, but I'm not entirely sure where this question fits in relation to those previous. One of the lessons I have learned from our history however, is that too many placed in power make it harder to stamp out corruption. Too few in positions in power can lead to temptation as well. A balance of sorts must be sought.
7 for the councle and 3 to 5 for the local chapters
3 meeting at a time for unofficial business, but the board should have no more or less then 12, if one steps down then a new should be raised as soon as possible
I no not of the dealings of the administration side so I'm ill-equiped to comment.
3 is 2 low. we need others to share there wisdom n convince the others if its good or not to see if its a good idea
can we really only find three people....>......let's work towards all of us being there....perhaps no one is ready, really.
As long as it is an odd number I do not see the problem, although saying that I feel a higher number would be more appropriate, the more people there are then the more diluted the spread of power becomes making it more a democracy than anything else.
as long as its odd to break ties in discussions
yes but there should be only one voice to make final decisions
it should be twelve at all time in times of need and peril we may not have control over this
IT IS POLOTICS DONT LET THEM CORRUPT US AS THEY HAVE THE REAL WORLD
3 is the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM I'd recommend. Say, if the other 9 council members wanted vacation or something.
2 is conflict! 3 is voice of reason.
Again I believe that we should seek the wise council of the first three movies.
I no not of administration so I'm ill-equiped to comment
Any less than 12 is unacceptable. We must have confidence that our council cannot be corrupted.
3 is best for the highest members of the administrative board, but also 12 more people for the board.
maybe 12 of council and 3 high members
We need 12 people like an actual jedi order
i say we have a few peopole in each cuntry and the biger this religion is in the country the more council members thy get but only 3 as most, like 3 in uk 3 in au 3 in us and 1 in sweden and so on
There should always be 12 members so that more views and opinions would be discussed.
You can make your comments once you have voted.